"...state of nothing short of sheer panic. It was not hard to see, as an outside observer, why the events of 1914-19 - and, perhaps going back earlier to the Great Unrest of 1911-12 - were compared to Rome's hegemony-ending Crisis of the Third Century by former Cabinet minister turned historian bon vivant and Oxford don Sir Winston Churchill. For the rest of the world, Britain's hour of grave uncertainty seemed to represent the unraveling geopolitical status quo underwritten by a British India and the Royal Navy on the high seas to back up London's financial hard power since the Congress of Vienna, which opened the door to a sudden rush of Europe's Great Powers trying to fill the vacuum that concluded with the Munich assassination and eruption of the Central European War in March of 1919. To ordinary Britons, it appeared meanwhile that the golden era of Victorian Pax Britannica abroad was collapsing alongside the societal contract at home, and a sense of deep fear, ennui and anger penetrated deep into the British psyche in a way that historians are still trying to decipher in the context of the political turbulence of the late 1910s and the reactionary ascendance of William Joynson-Hicks the decade thereafter alongside a militant leftism that nearly tipped Britain into a syndicalist-fueled civil war. In many ways, it is a minor miracle that the British monarchy survived, and it is a testament to the popular, modest and plain George V who cast himself as the paragon of the virtuous and idealized British middle-class way of life that it did.
The twin crises of Ireland and India did reveal those who unlike the King did not meet the hour, first and foremost the Prime Minister Hugh Cecil and much of the British military establishment, two pillars of national ineptitude. The approaching one-year anniversary of the Curragh Mutiny was revealing on both ends; Cecil declined to decisively condemn it as his first year in Number 10 came to a close, choosing instead to "focus on the crises of the time," while the rift that had been torn through the heart of the British Army's officer class over the matter had essentially broken all cooperation down into competing fiefdoms. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, John French, was effectively not on speaking terms with Lord Kitchener in Ireland, who had to use Chief Secretary Lord Midleton to communicate with Whitehall; Generals Henry Wilson and William Robertson, meanwhile, were suspected of now openly aiding the UVF directly, up to passing secrets, and French's paranoia went so far as to believe that Intelligence Corps officers were covering for their friends out of Ulsterite sympathies. (It would, of course, be revealed years later that Wilson and Richardson's support for and participation in Ulster Unionist activities went above and beyond even what French believed). Cecil was loathe to sack French, however, considering the political fragility of the time and of his government; he relied on Liberal goodwill to pursue any policy, and appointing even more ardently Unionist officers to the General Staff as Ireland burned was regarded as a red line that Chamberlain would not tolerate.
The Punjab Mutiny thus struck London at precisely the time it was at its weakest in decades, with both the political and military establishment slouched in a crisis they were already hard-pressed to control and respond properly to. Though the worst-case scenario of the collapse of the British Raj within days that the Ghadarites who had launched the Mutiny unrealistically hoped for had not come to pass, the British Indian Army still faced daunting logistical challenges at a time when resources were streaming into Ireland and the numbers of European officers and enlisted men were at their thinnest in the Subcontinent in years. Further complicating matters on the ground in India was that out of the longstanding prejudiced theory of a "martial race," the Indian Army had disproportionately recruited Punjabis, Sikhs in particular but also Muslims, to its ranks, largely stemming from the absurd belief that Hindus were weak, effeminate and unsuited for combat. [1] This meant that the rebels had some of the most experienced active soldiers on their side amongst the mutinying divisions and could call on veterans of the Indian Army across Punjab to rally to the flag of Ghadar.
News on March 5th that the rebels had captured Amritsar, the holiest city in Sikhism, was the clarion call for outright panic at the India Office. Lord Peel, the Secretary of State for India, in the March 6th Cabinet meeting demanded bluntly that an expeditionary force be dispatched to India at once to put down the rebellion; while he had confidence in the adequacy of the Indian Army and its experienced Commander-in-Chief Sir Beauchamp Duff in preventing the fall of New Delhi and of the loose confederation of princely states of what is now Rajasthan to cut off any hope of the rebels marching south through the central Indian desert towards Bombay, his more immediate concern was something more akin to how the collapse of Spanish authority in the Philippines two decades earlier had begun: a massive uprising, successful defeated in the field, but then impossible to quench when it went underground in the backcountry and simmered consistently rather than burning fast and bright. India's geography of towering, cave-dotted mountains and deep forests would make stamping out an insurgency once established and credible with the natives virtually impossible, and Peel's fear - one he expressed in that meeting - was that an insufficient response in 1915 would mean that Britain would still be fighting a slow-boil Ghadarite enemy bleeding them dry in 1935.
This strategic nightmare opened all kinds of other doors that Cecil and his growing collection of sycophantic Whitehall mandarins preferred not to think about. Not only did Peel's scenario sound frighteningly plausible following the British experience in Ireland, but after the fall of Spanish Philippines and the emergence of the Republic of China and its radical Guomindang, or Nationalist Party, having a heartland in the south and southwest of China, the risk of an insurgency supported by foreign powers - China, France, Russia, whoever - was too real a risk to ignore. Despite mounting financial obligations in Ireland to sustain the British Army's patrols that were tipping the island closer to an outright police state, the Raj was the crown jewel of the British realms. Without India, there was no Empire.
Cecil thus on March 10th, 1915, [2] gave a speech in the Commons - at the same time that Ferozepur fell fully to the spreading Ghadar movement and hundreds flocked to their banners by the day - on the crisis in India and on the government's response. The man who with his infamous "Pith Hat Speech" had worsened Anglo-Indian relations the last time he'd sat in government on the heels of the Bombay Police Riots of 1907 now was called upon to try to solve a debacle partly of his own making, and while the address certainly was not one of the great oratories of Westminster's long and storied history or in the repertoire of the talented speaker who gave it, it succinctly got the job done. "The British Empire stands upon the brink," he declared to a skeptical Commons. "This must be an hour of comradery - we shall stand together, or we shall fall separately." The address did, understandably, not go over well in an Ireland where ordinary Irishmen were curious who exactly this "we" was who was meant to stand "together" considering the increasingly arbitrary and radicalizing behavior of the Army there, but the call was to the entire Empire. Much more so than the internal conflict in Ireland, what was happening in India was an open, full-throated revolt against British authority that had seen Britons slaughtered and deserved a response in kind. [3]
The expeditionary force Cecil was demanding to secure India would thus draw from across the Empire - it would take in men from not only the Home Islands but also Canada, South Africa and Australia, as well as any African or Hong Kong Chinese who might be keen to volunteer. It would be an enormous, expensive undertaking, but keeping India in the Empire warranted it. Underlining the gravity of the moment, Cecil's government appointed Lord Kitchener as the commander-in-chief of this British Expeditionary Force and indeed the combined forces of the Dominions that would arrive with him, removing him from Ireland; as Cecil acknowledged in a letter shortly before his death, even then he understood "if we chose India, it would be possible to in some form keep Ireland; if we chose Ireland, it would be impossible to keep either." With Kitchener's deployment to India along with his capable deputy and favourite Macready, a replacement had to be found as the right-hand of the Duke of Clarence and Lord Midleton in Dublin, and for that task French settled on General Sir Archibald "A.J." Murray, his longstanding aide-de-camp thought to be more trustworthy on the question of Ulster than the Director of Military Training, General Sir William Robertson, who would be himself receiving a command in crucial India before long.
In that sense, the Irish Civil War had entered a newer, stranger period, one in which while escalating just across the Irish Sea from Britain and dominating British headlines, was definitively on the backburner for British officialdom in terms of attention paid and military talent and resources dispatched to combat it..." [4]
- The Second Act of the Georgian Age: Britain 1906-1924
[1] This was a genuinely held British attitude, dating back decades (Gandhi volunteered for active combat duty in the Boer War partially to help disprove this, for instance). I couldn't find a good way to slide this into the narrative, but the factor of the Punjabi Sikhs being the most loyal in 1857 also led to them being considered the most favored for Army service by the British thereafter. Ironic!
[2] Incidentally my dad's birthday - though of course not in 1915
[3] Of course, what the Unionists got up to at Carrickfergus could be considered an "open, full-throated revolt against British authority," but they're White Civilized Protestants (TM) and support Cecil's government while the Ghadarites are those Brown Savage Colonials so, alas...
[4] We'll go more in-depth on the ground in India in the sequel thread, I wanted to make sure I fully covered the destabilizing political effect that Ghadar has on London and Ireland alike
The twin crises of Ireland and India did reveal those who unlike the King did not meet the hour, first and foremost the Prime Minister Hugh Cecil and much of the British military establishment, two pillars of national ineptitude. The approaching one-year anniversary of the Curragh Mutiny was revealing on both ends; Cecil declined to decisively condemn it as his first year in Number 10 came to a close, choosing instead to "focus on the crises of the time," while the rift that had been torn through the heart of the British Army's officer class over the matter had essentially broken all cooperation down into competing fiefdoms. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, John French, was effectively not on speaking terms with Lord Kitchener in Ireland, who had to use Chief Secretary Lord Midleton to communicate with Whitehall; Generals Henry Wilson and William Robertson, meanwhile, were suspected of now openly aiding the UVF directly, up to passing secrets, and French's paranoia went so far as to believe that Intelligence Corps officers were covering for their friends out of Ulsterite sympathies. (It would, of course, be revealed years later that Wilson and Richardson's support for and participation in Ulster Unionist activities went above and beyond even what French believed). Cecil was loathe to sack French, however, considering the political fragility of the time and of his government; he relied on Liberal goodwill to pursue any policy, and appointing even more ardently Unionist officers to the General Staff as Ireland burned was regarded as a red line that Chamberlain would not tolerate.
The Punjab Mutiny thus struck London at precisely the time it was at its weakest in decades, with both the political and military establishment slouched in a crisis they were already hard-pressed to control and respond properly to. Though the worst-case scenario of the collapse of the British Raj within days that the Ghadarites who had launched the Mutiny unrealistically hoped for had not come to pass, the British Indian Army still faced daunting logistical challenges at a time when resources were streaming into Ireland and the numbers of European officers and enlisted men were at their thinnest in the Subcontinent in years. Further complicating matters on the ground in India was that out of the longstanding prejudiced theory of a "martial race," the Indian Army had disproportionately recruited Punjabis, Sikhs in particular but also Muslims, to its ranks, largely stemming from the absurd belief that Hindus were weak, effeminate and unsuited for combat. [1] This meant that the rebels had some of the most experienced active soldiers on their side amongst the mutinying divisions and could call on veterans of the Indian Army across Punjab to rally to the flag of Ghadar.
News on March 5th that the rebels had captured Amritsar, the holiest city in Sikhism, was the clarion call for outright panic at the India Office. Lord Peel, the Secretary of State for India, in the March 6th Cabinet meeting demanded bluntly that an expeditionary force be dispatched to India at once to put down the rebellion; while he had confidence in the adequacy of the Indian Army and its experienced Commander-in-Chief Sir Beauchamp Duff in preventing the fall of New Delhi and of the loose confederation of princely states of what is now Rajasthan to cut off any hope of the rebels marching south through the central Indian desert towards Bombay, his more immediate concern was something more akin to how the collapse of Spanish authority in the Philippines two decades earlier had begun: a massive uprising, successful defeated in the field, but then impossible to quench when it went underground in the backcountry and simmered consistently rather than burning fast and bright. India's geography of towering, cave-dotted mountains and deep forests would make stamping out an insurgency once established and credible with the natives virtually impossible, and Peel's fear - one he expressed in that meeting - was that an insufficient response in 1915 would mean that Britain would still be fighting a slow-boil Ghadarite enemy bleeding them dry in 1935.
This strategic nightmare opened all kinds of other doors that Cecil and his growing collection of sycophantic Whitehall mandarins preferred not to think about. Not only did Peel's scenario sound frighteningly plausible following the British experience in Ireland, but after the fall of Spanish Philippines and the emergence of the Republic of China and its radical Guomindang, or Nationalist Party, having a heartland in the south and southwest of China, the risk of an insurgency supported by foreign powers - China, France, Russia, whoever - was too real a risk to ignore. Despite mounting financial obligations in Ireland to sustain the British Army's patrols that were tipping the island closer to an outright police state, the Raj was the crown jewel of the British realms. Without India, there was no Empire.
Cecil thus on March 10th, 1915, [2] gave a speech in the Commons - at the same time that Ferozepur fell fully to the spreading Ghadar movement and hundreds flocked to their banners by the day - on the crisis in India and on the government's response. The man who with his infamous "Pith Hat Speech" had worsened Anglo-Indian relations the last time he'd sat in government on the heels of the Bombay Police Riots of 1907 now was called upon to try to solve a debacle partly of his own making, and while the address certainly was not one of the great oratories of Westminster's long and storied history or in the repertoire of the talented speaker who gave it, it succinctly got the job done. "The British Empire stands upon the brink," he declared to a skeptical Commons. "This must be an hour of comradery - we shall stand together, or we shall fall separately." The address did, understandably, not go over well in an Ireland where ordinary Irishmen were curious who exactly this "we" was who was meant to stand "together" considering the increasingly arbitrary and radicalizing behavior of the Army there, but the call was to the entire Empire. Much more so than the internal conflict in Ireland, what was happening in India was an open, full-throated revolt against British authority that had seen Britons slaughtered and deserved a response in kind. [3]
The expeditionary force Cecil was demanding to secure India would thus draw from across the Empire - it would take in men from not only the Home Islands but also Canada, South Africa and Australia, as well as any African or Hong Kong Chinese who might be keen to volunteer. It would be an enormous, expensive undertaking, but keeping India in the Empire warranted it. Underlining the gravity of the moment, Cecil's government appointed Lord Kitchener as the commander-in-chief of this British Expeditionary Force and indeed the combined forces of the Dominions that would arrive with him, removing him from Ireland; as Cecil acknowledged in a letter shortly before his death, even then he understood "if we chose India, it would be possible to in some form keep Ireland; if we chose Ireland, it would be impossible to keep either." With Kitchener's deployment to India along with his capable deputy and favourite Macready, a replacement had to be found as the right-hand of the Duke of Clarence and Lord Midleton in Dublin, and for that task French settled on General Sir Archibald "A.J." Murray, his longstanding aide-de-camp thought to be more trustworthy on the question of Ulster than the Director of Military Training, General Sir William Robertson, who would be himself receiving a command in crucial India before long.
In that sense, the Irish Civil War had entered a newer, stranger period, one in which while escalating just across the Irish Sea from Britain and dominating British headlines, was definitively on the backburner for British officialdom in terms of attention paid and military talent and resources dispatched to combat it..." [4]
- The Second Act of the Georgian Age: Britain 1906-1924
[1] This was a genuinely held British attitude, dating back decades (Gandhi volunteered for active combat duty in the Boer War partially to help disprove this, for instance). I couldn't find a good way to slide this into the narrative, but the factor of the Punjabi Sikhs being the most loyal in 1857 also led to them being considered the most favored for Army service by the British thereafter. Ironic!
[2] Incidentally my dad's birthday - though of course not in 1915
[3] Of course, what the Unionists got up to at Carrickfergus could be considered an "open, full-throated revolt against British authority," but they're White Civilized Protestants (TM) and support Cecil's government while the Ghadarites are those Brown Savage Colonials so, alas...
[4] We'll go more in-depth on the ground in India in the sequel thread, I wanted to make sure I fully covered the destabilizing political effect that Ghadar has on London and Ireland alike